In recent years, Seattle-area pastor Mark Driscoll has come under a great deal of scrutiny for his past use of foul language and a controversial sermon series on sex.
[img_assist|nid=6114|title=Page Brooks, Assistant Professor of Theology NOBTS|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=67|height=100]I need not repeat here some of the objectionable phrases and words he has used as they are readily accessible via transcripts on the Internet.
Let me say the following at the outset: I believe our speech and behavior should be above reproach. Therefore, I am not defending Discroll’s use of foul language.
Several motions were even made at the 2009 Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting that revolved around Driscoll’s words and actions.
To be fair to Driscoll, he has repented and asked forgiveness for his past cussing.
Some of Driscoll’s apologies were actually encouraged by Lifeway Christian Resource’s own Ed Stetzer. Driscoll has apologized for other similar incidents on various occasions.
I think the question vexing many evangelical Christians about Mark Driscoll is the paradox we find in people like him: He claims to be “culturally relevant” while at the same time he maintains he is “biblically conservative.”
While such labels coming from Driscoll may be controversial to some, I believe that many Christians have an affinity with those labels because we want to be exactly that: reaching and being relevant to the world while holding to unchanging, biblical truths.
Again, I by no means intend to defend him, but I believe we have to ask this question: What can we learn from people like Mark Driscoll?
I think we do need to pay attention not because of the answers he is providing but because of the questions he has identified in the culture.
I believe Driscoll, in trying to be “culturally relevant,” is merely trying to answer the questions he heard coming from the culture. Perhaps we need not necessarily listen to Driscoll, but rather listen to the culture that Driscoll is trying to address.
What does the culture Driscoll is attempting to address look like? It is a culture that has little or no biblical worldview.
It is a culture that does not feel confined by the “church culture” of which most Christians are a part.
It is also a culture that is still asking the same questions as generations before: Why am I here? What is the meaning of life? How can I have happiness?
In asking such questions, the culture crosses into such controversial subjects as sex, alcohol, relationships, career and family. The questions Driscoll tries to answer are real-life questions.
With no church background or biblical worldview, the world really is asking questions the aforementioned topics, but not perhaps in the way we would ask in a more reserved way in the “church culture.”
For example, I serve as a National Guard chaplain. As a result I am required to go on annual training with several hundred young men and women.
As I go about my ministry of presence with these fine young men and women in the military, they often pull me to the side and ask me very direct questions – questions that Driscoll is trying to answer.
Admittedly there is a great difference between my private conversations with these young soldiers and the way Driscoll has decided to answer such questions publicly.
Nevertheless, my point is that the questions are being asked, but is the church really willing to address them?
We live in a culture that is no longer a predominantly Christian culture.
The culture is not the same as the one in which my godly grandmother grew up.Consequently, the answers from my godly grandmother’s Sunday School class will not adequately address the questions coming from this culture.
Today’s generation, for whatever the reason, is just not as reserved as previous generations with regards to topics like sexuality. They talk about it as openly as any other topic.
So, how can we answer the questions the culture is asking while still maintaining our biblical witness without compromising our speech or actions?
First of all, the church needs to listen.
Many of our programmatic and felt-needs sermons are actually not answering the questions of the culture.
The culture wants biblical answers to those tough questions. And yes, some of those questions may make some of our church people blush when they are asked.
Second, I believe the church needs seriously to examine the language it uses to communicate the Gospel.
On the one hand, we do not need to compromise our own language. All of our language is to be above reproach.
We do not have to violate this principle when we try to be culturally relevant.
I had a great, godly man who taught youth Sunday School at my home church.
Every time he would get up to pray, he would start out by saying, “Our dearly beloved heavenly Father, we thank thee for this day that thou hast given to us thy children.” I appreciated his deep respect for God, however, his words did not communicate to new Christians.
My old Sunday School teacher’s vocabulary was viewed as archaic. We need to be willing to examine our own language to make sure we are speaking in ways that can allow someone from today’s culture – not yesterday’s society – to understand.
Finally, we must be willing to move out of our comfort zone in order to reach today’s generation.
We have developed too much of a “church culture,” which has become culturally irrelevant.
We have developed so much of our own ways of speaking and acting that we have become disconnected from the world.
It seems that we have become so accustomed to our own church culture that we are not only shocked but we are also embarrassed when the culture asks questions, such as those dealing with sex.
The Bible has plenty to say on hard topics, as well as the hardest topic of all: the eternal destiny of our souls.
The hard question for the church at this time is if we are willing to do what it takes to answer them in a way that is relevant but also above reproach.
To do this, we don’t have to emulate Mark Driscoll, but perhaps we can learn a few things from him.